Now, there's an assertion! I agree that the blood is on the right, but I'm not seeing much rationality from anyone.

[Obama] has never shaken off that slight patronizing attitude toward the working-class voters he is losing now, the ones he dubbed “bitter” during his campaign....

The insane have achieved political respectability while the sane act too good for it all. The irrational celebrate while the rational act bored and above-it-all.

Oh, my. This is all so Dowdesque. She gets multiple themes going, many mixed images, and she demands that you believe that she's tied them all together when she says she has. It's ironic here, because she's the one full of passionate intensity and low on rationality. What I just can't buy is that Obama is rational. He's phlegmatic. He always was. You can read that as rational, but it's irrational to do so.

[I]f I didn't know who he was and that there was a crowd there, I would picture an old man slumped in an armchair, expatiating for the benefit of anyone unlucky enough to be within earshot. It's formless stream of consciousness. Oh, there is that theme of hope. The stream swirls back there at predictable intervals....

[R]eally, such drivel. Just listing a lot of issues and saying hope, hope, hope should not inspire real hope. I can't believe people are hearing this and thinking: brilliant rhetoric. "Intellectual slovenliness" is a much more apt phrase.

Yes, I know, I ultimately voted for him. Here's a post of mine from February 2008 explaining how I got from "gasbag" to the decision to vote for him in the Wisconsin primary. I can't really say that I was terribly rational.

Politics, for every individual, is about asserted his/her self-interest in a market of competing self-interests.

This has nothing to do with scientific rationalism or the weighing of evidence.

It's all about who's ox is getting gored, and that's what it should be about.

Obama's supporters include blacks, government workers, welfare recipients and single women. They vote for him because he represents their economic self-interests. To call this some exercise of rationalism is just nuts.

Republican supports include white men and married women, business owners, people who don't want to live on welfare and people who want the government to stay out of their business. Nothing to do with rationalism here either.

You've framed the debate as bullshit, Ann. We aren't supposed to judge our self-interest by some exercise in scientific deduction. We know what our self-interest is by checking out our properties, our bank accounts and who's got our hand in our pockets.

This isn't supposed to be about rationalism.

Dowdy is an unmarried white women living in Manhattan. Obsessed with hip social status. Probably a fag hag at heart. That defines her political values... nothing else.

Dr. Althouse: having recently taken you to task for your lack of logic in your description of Imam Rauf and comparing it to your lack of logic in voting for President Obama, let me take the opportunity to say "Eh... but the alternative was McCain," and to acknowledge that one could rationally choose against McCain.

What's depressing is that American politics seems to degenerate into this level of hairsplitting.

Ann, I'd bet your political ideas have changed dramatically over the past decade, and I'll bet that has just about nothing to do with "rationalism."

You have a son. You got married. The anti-male bitchiness of feminism gets a little tiresome when you've got a male son and you've got a husband. You've got a stake in the self-interest of men. So, the man hating bitchy feminism lost its attraction.

I've seen the dynamics of this transformation in white women who get married repeatedly. When white women are single, the profession of feminist and liberal pieties is a status issue. At this stage, women will spend a lot of time declaring how much they are concerned about gays, etc.

This tends to go away quickly after they're married.

The acquisition of property and stability after marriage will produce a equally profound change in the political ideas of a white woman.

It's not about rationalism. It's about who's ox is getting gored, and who's got their hand in your pocket.

In less than one month from being an unknown to being the GOP's senate nominee, we know more of O'Donnell's background than we know about the Umm-in-Chief's. Her entire background is out there for all the world to see and critique....school loans, witchcraft, lawsuits.

Mesquito, America's Asshole does not speak English. He tries, but is always found wanting. I think he is either a muslim plant paid for by Soros or a Chicom agent. In either case, he is a stooge and an illiterate.

Most fascinating of all is that the editorial staff at the NY Times has no problem with their bag lady columnist throwing around the term insane as a description of the entire center to right political spectrum. Kinda gives the game away.

That was pretty condescending. To say that the Professor's views will change as she acquires property through marriage like all women who marry. As if we only acquire property through marriage. As if we abandon the premises of equality because we have to put our man first.

Funny, you don't seem to think men change as a result of marriage; I assume that you believe men to be rational and constant while women are irrational and inconstant.

I think that says more about YOUR opinion of women than it reflects upon the reality of the world.

Conversely, this is the reason why contemporary liberals keep puffing out their chests and unleashing their latest sanctimonious diatribe... they are proudly proclaiming to us that their politics are based on high minded rationalism.

They aren't motivated by lowly self-interest, like some dumb home owner out in Jersey. They're motivated by high level concern for abstract ideals.

This is, of course, bullshit.

For instance, in the arts, the profession of PC liberalism is a pre-requisite for being seen or heard.

When I was younger and hustling like crazy to try to make an impact in the music business, I was very liberal. And, viola! It worked. The more I professed liberal ideals, the farther I progressed in the business.

When I got sick of it and absented myself from that business, my politics changed quite dramatically. There was no longer anything to gain from declaring my belief in high minded ideals.

Paul Snively said..."Dr. Althouse: having recently taken you to task for your lack of logic in your description of Imam Rauf and comparing it to your lack of logic in voting for President Obama, let me take the opportunity to say "Eh... but the alternative was McCain," and to acknowledge that one could rationally choose against McCain."

The post I linked to is about my decision to vote for Obama in the primary. The alternative was Clinton.

Ultimately, I did vote for Obama in the general election and my reason was the rejection of McCain. The post explaining how McCain lost me is here. That was not based on any kind of passion for Obama. It was coolly rational.

Anne from 2008:"As I said above, I haven't liked [Hillary], but I pictured myself voting for her anyway — back when she was inevitable. But Obama's growing power allowed me to cast off my resignation."

Perhaps not enough has been made of this point. The depressing effect of the "inevitability" of Hillary on people looking for a wide open campaign and a real choice after Bush, because of the open presidential seat, might not have been properly acknowledged. Obama was the one who, and probably the only one who could have, popped the top off that carbonated bottle of pent up Hillary fatigue and let the contents come fizzing out. In a way, I'm guessing certain people felt they owed him their support, just for that act of public service.

The downside is that I think it's clear that the overwhelming reason Obama was able to pop that top was because he was essentially playing the race card, whether intentionally or not. Otherwise, as I've said before, he would have just been John Edwards-lite, and that wouldn't have been enough to get the job done, i.e. putting Hillary's nomination in jeopardy. Or more specifically, cracking the veneer of her inevitability.

Unfortunately, that doesn't qualify one to be a good president. Add in plenty of votes based on white guilt (see Joe Biden's "you've got the first African-American who is articulate and bright and clean"), plenty more votes based on voting against McCain as the only alternative (very similar to the votes he got because Hillary was the only alternative) and suddenly you have a president underqualified for the job. He was qualified to pierce Hillary's bubble and really good at campaigning, but not particularly qualified or suited to be president.

P.S. I think Ann should have stuck to her initial assessment of his speeches as empty piffle. How do you bond with empty piffle?

Yes, the Mododo projects onto C O'D her own deranged hallucinations, generated in that Upper West Side cocoon she rarely leaves. O'Donnell may be a bit loopy, but Castle amassed $8 million in forty-five years of public service and gets shirty when he's ditched. Coons is a serial tax-increase addict who espouses Marxism, proudly.

I'm a bitter clinger and thank God, it looks like The Won is a one-termer.

Isn't it great how the lefties from Stewart to MoDo openly and aggressively attack libs?

Presumably the right thinks that it's irrational/counterproductive to attack it's own (as Rove recently experienced). Maybe they're right when it comes to winning elections.

But, such mandatory blind devotion was not helpful during the W years (or the Reagan years when the debt was tripled, and the deficit was doubled as a percentage of GDP, and middle income folks experienced a huge payroll tax increase that was designed to tax higher income folks at zero percent, and the reward for terrorists who killed hundreds of Americans (83) was that we retreated months later).

It's fascinating that the cons are now telling us that "this time" they will force their office holders to act w/ fiscal prudence. But,

a) They're already mindlessly following marching orders even when it's obvious that some pause could be wise, as the Rove incident shows.

b) They're back to the voodoo economics of Reagan and Bush. This time they tell us that the deficit is a big problem, and they're also telling us that an additional decade long four trillion deficit is no problem. We are told that taxation for rich folks at the WJC level would be the destruction of America ushered in by a Kenyan anti-colonial commie (and the cons visceral feelings (myths) have no room for our true history e.g. regarding taxes, how do they not hate Ike much more than BHO: Ike had the top rate at more than 2.5 times the proposed BHO (previous WJC) level when it was 91%)

"When I was younger and hustling like crazy to try to make an impact in the music business, I was very liberal. And, viola! It worked. The more I professed liberal ideals, the farther I progressed in the business."

True. Once I said, openly, "this is bullshit", they turned on me like nobody's business - ruthlessly.

Rationality is over rated, especially when big things need done. The desire to be or appear rational leads people to take a wait and see approach, or to become mired in analysis. Meanwhile the forces against you passionately saw the legs off of your chair.

The correct path is not usually that hard to discern. Execution is the challenge and passion is everything. Obama's election is clear example of the power of passion over rationality.

Choosing rationally is the most important part, but it is also the easy part. You can't skip it, nor dwell on it if you hope to succeed.

Normally, the rational is on the right, and they shake their heads at the emotionality of the left.

And, mark my word, you have to be voting emotionally in most cases to vote liberal. Why? Because that is their entire appeal. Their policies, invariably, when viewed dispassionately, are destined to failure, as they have been routinely, since the 1930s, and esp. since LBJ's Great Society.

Think about how we can have the President we have right now, whose entire claim to being the best person for the job, and why every who voted for him seemed to do so, was that he has an Ivy League education, is half Black, looks decently good for a mulatto, and could make fairly decent emotional speeches about hope and change, as long as he had a teleprompter close.

In short, his appeal was 100% emotional. Maybe some of the emotion was rational, due to the Bush fatigue generated by 8 years of negative press by the MSM. But emotional, none the less.

And, no wonder every thing he touches as President turns to excrement. He is grossly unqualified for the job.

Policy choice after policy choice is emotionally driven on the left. Borrow and buy our way out of a recession. Yey! The more the better. Give everyone free health care. Yey! No excess bonuses. Yey! No excess premium increases. Yey! Nail those banks and other financial institutions? Yey!

And that is why it is often so frustrating to argue with liberals, because in the end, they are liberals because they are either emotional, or exploiting those who are emotional.

This time around though, the rational side of the divide has gone emotional, in reaction to the incompetence of President Obama, and, in particular, the gross excesses of the Democrats running Congress this time. They have watched them flush some two trillion or so dollars down the drain, endebting all our grandchildren, in order to pay off political allies. They have watched the destruction of the best health care system in the world in the name of equality. They are watching the looming massive tax increases of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, in order to spread the wealth around. All in the midst of a major recession, made much worse by the Democrats running the country.

And, so, the rational side of the American public has gone emotional this election cycle, and liberals like MoDo don't know what to do, except to panic.

For a while a fair number of cons thought HW was bad because he didn't take over Iraq because he was worried that the costs didn't outweigh the benefits. Presumably, this criticism is less effective today, all things considered.

And, of course, HW did raise taxes (after promising not to) to fight the deficit. The funny thing is that WJC's later tax increase to fight the deficit was actually only doing about half of the work that eventually balanced the budget, poor HW's contribution is never noted because cons (irrationally?) can't acknowledge that taxes need to be collected on a level that equals the expense of government we have (as opposed to the limited, never implemented government that we (incl Reagan and W w/ his con congress) can conjure, only, in our minds) and the libs have no reason to acknowledge that HW's tough decision contributed to the balanced budget. [That sentence was even more convoluted than my usual, just for shoutingt.]

b) They're back to the voodoo economics of Reagan and Bush. This time they tell us that the deficit is a big problem, and they're also telling us that an additional decade long four trillion deficit is no problem. We are told that taxation for rich folks at the WJC level would be the destruction of America ushered in by a Kenyan anti-colonial commie (and the cons visceral feelings (myths) have no room for our true history e.g. regarding taxes, how do they not hate Ike much more than BHO: Ike had the top rate at more than 2.5 times the proposed BHO (previous WJC) level when it was 91%).

Only vodoo economics if you aren't smart enough to see that it works. In any case, up until the end, this is exactly the sort of emotional argument I was talking about.

In regards to the deficit, there is a big difference in the effect on the economy between a $200B to $400B year or so deficit run up in a boom, as opposed to $1500B deficits run up in the depths of a recession. The first could, almost, be justified by the fact that we were at war, after 9/11. The later? And, esp. where the money was spent, and wasn't spent? Pure selfish splurging on the part of the Democrats in power and their biggest supporters. Oh, and never forget that the last two Bush years were under a Democratic Congress, and that is why spending (and borrowing) started to significantly increase starting after the 2006 election.

As for tax rates, Ike, etc., the question right now is not the level of marginal taxation on higher incomes that an economy in a boom can support, but rather, the effects of raising marginal tax rates in the midst of a major recession (made significantly worse by the feckless actions of the Democrats running the country right now).

So, talking about tax rates under Ike, is totally irrelevant to the situation here. Besides, you also need to look at the percentage of GDP going to the government, and, thus, acting as a drag on the economy, in addition to the marginal rates. And that percentage has jumped significantly over the last year and a half, to essentially the highest levels since WWII (and likely worse, if you add in state and local taxes).

H.W.'s choices were exactly the kind that got us where we are. I think he was a decent man, but our problems are a result of not addressing government spending, period. Only raising taxes when the budget gets out of whack is the enabling policy that has bankrupted us. It has a long history, and H.W. just didn't change it - he push it along on it's way. That stinking train has now arrived at the station. It was not his doing, but he did nothing to slow it down either.

The funny thing is that WJC's later tax increase to fight the deficit was actually only doing about half of the work that eventually balanced the budget, poor HW's contribution is never noted because cons (irrationally?) can't acknowledge that taxes need to be collected on a level that equals the expense of government we have.

You forgot to mention that the big reason that Clinton was closer to balancing the budget was that Reagan and Bush (41) rebuilt our military, and as a result, were able to win the Cold War, and fight the First Gulf War successfully. That cost money. And, then Clinton slashed military spending, by, for example, cutting the number of active Army divisions in half, mothballing the battleships, etc., and that "Peace Dividend" was a big factor in his success. Also, of note, that GHWB operated under a Democratic Congress, and Clinton, after screwing up his first two years, operated under a Republican Congress that just wouldn't let him squander money like the current Congress does.

So, any time anyone talks about Clinton "balancing the budget", keep in mind, that spending bills comes from Congress, and that these were Gingrich budgets.

The insane have achieved political respectability while the sane act too good for it all. The irrational celebrate while the rational act bored and above-it-all.

Strong statement from Maureen. People are so concerned about the economy and debt and jobs that they don't seem to care who stops it. And that is understandable. But what happens when these loopy folks have to face other issues? - what if *events* in the world change radically (and they might) - how does someone who lives on the extreme edge deal with other major problems?

The facts are that the only way the federal government balanced it's budget was by raising taxes to match spending. Your combination of excuses for Rs that blow up the debt (e.g. BHO walking into a 1.3 billion dollar deficit before turning on the lights) boil down to

In reference to one of Shouting Thomas's points...probably doesn't need to be said but Althouse has been a home owner long before Meade came into her life. However, I'd be surprised if having a respected, more politically conservative adult in the household to exchange ideas with has not had an effect.

Down is partial right judging by the posters on this blog who embrace an irrational celebration for O'Donnell, who has become a Palin, just because she says no. But I like Dowd, and Althouse because they mix up images as they push for insights. I mean Fast trains and Big Brother is cute and hits the mark in a way even though it ignores the cool things government has done like say Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. I also think the rational, like Dowd, Obama, and Althouse, try to make meaning out of a complex reality, and sometimes they use images and metaphors to explain themselves--some trite like hope, or common sense spewed by politicians, and some a bit richer.

Ha, when Dowd writes "He seems weary of crisis management, conveying the attitude of the hero in “The Incredibles” who has to keep saving the world: “Sometimes I just want it to stay saved!”All all I could think of was Obama's plaintive "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" lament during the campaign.

Jeez. You say you voted for him in the primary, but you do not mention anything about the general election. I'd let the primary vote slide. But, don't tell me that you voted for him in the general, please.

The facts are that the only way the federal government balanced it's budget was by raising taxes to match spending. Your combination of excuses for Rs that blow up the debt (e.g. BHO walking into a 1.3 billion dollar deficit before turning on the lights) boil down to.

Keep dreaming. When Clinton (and the Gingrich Congress) came close to doing so, a lot of it was due to the "Peace Dividend", a one time major cut in our military, that was possible thanks to Reagan, et al. effectively winning the Cold War.

"Because it was the music business, a violin or a cello might also have worked."

Hey, ST, now the Obama voter's going to tell us about the politics of the music business, too! It just never stops - even after an admission she was wrong. Adding insult to the injury of fucking us.

Hey, Ann, do they cover the meaning of "charlatan" and "con game" in those big prestigious lawyer schools out there? If they do, then please answer me this:

Most normal people - after they realize they've been "played" - get TOTALLY PISSED OFF at the perps and want, both, justice and their money back - why not you?

You just seem to lash out at anyone who points out you got played. All we're asking for is some intellectual honesty - which, I admit, I've found to be a major demand for liberals to adhere to - why the snark?

You know as much about the music business, and the people in it, as I know about fly fishing - which ain't shit. The very first musician to assist me, after my marriage came apart, insisted I should immediately get my astrological chart done. Now think about Madonna and Kabbalah. Or Robbie Williams and U.F.O.s.

If you're going to raise Yeats, let's point out that the "worst" have been full of passionate intensity since Obama announced his candidacy. Only since Tax Day 2009 have the best not lacked "all conviction." Here's hoping that the center holds, and that we stop slouching to socialism.

Obama is rational once we accept his Marxist tenants that the world is rightfully incensed at all American's and their Evil Empire that Obama has promised to everyone who listens to destroy from within.

Maureen is right that O'Donnell looks like a great Gracie Burns personality that is all too female. Bot, so what. O'Donnell only has to vote with the conservatives for whatever reason. It is Irrelephant how she may chose to express herself. On the other hand a President MUST LEAD... because he is our only leader. That is where Obama is only an empty suit, and where Palin appears to be a confident decision maker.

I don't see the problem, here. Obama has been compared to Spock and called "a lightworker". Not so long ago, Andrew Sullivan couldn't go a minute w/o framing Bush and Iraq in terms of protecting the Shire. Jonah Goldberg is another one still heavily into metaphor featuring the superheroes of his youth, as is pretty much all of Gen X - see Kevin Smith.

You can take the kid out of the drama of the Catholic Church, but you can't take the CC drama out of the kid. (Sullivan, Smith, O'Donnell, Dowd.)

" I still wonder about what goes on in your "religion and the law" class, though."

Here's the book we use. You could read it and you'd pretty much know what we do. We talk about how to interpret the first 16 words of the First Amendment, mostly. We study cases, try to understand what the courts have said and why, think about how the various conflicts should be resolved, and hone lawyerly skills making arguments about that. I don't push the students one way or the other. I try to promote understanding and the ability to operate professionally in the legal system.

I just got back from the studio and, yes, it's coming along brilliantly: with only 7 songs mastered, it already sounds like I have a decent album started (I could stop now and be happy with the results) but there's still a bunch more to go, so I'm going in once more and see if it improves or if it just gets to sounding indulgent or something.

And yes - there's a lot of material to sort through, all from different sessions, recorded by different means - so I thought trying to edit them into something coherent, that holds together as a complete project, was going to be the tough part but, as I said, they now seem to go together quite well, so I'm pretty pleased. So pleased I'll probably be up all night just trying to decide what to call the damned thing.

Thanks, for mentioning it, again: I spend so much time alone, these days, it can honestly seem like no one would care if I lived or died.

Paul Snively wrote:having recently taken you to task for your lack of logic in your description of Imam Rauf and comparing it to your lack of logic in voting for President Obama, let me take the opportunity to say "Eh... but the alternative was McCain," and to acknowledge that one could rationally choose against McCain.

Certainly Mccain is no ideal conservative. However, he's paired against an inexperienced socialist (by association) who wants to bankrupt the coal industry and spread the wealth around, and who speaks in platitudes that work for little children (i.e. Yes We Can), what exactly guided non liberals decisions to vote for this guy?First black president? Check. Historical. I can see the reasoning. We should have a black president (and a Latino President, and a female President etc.) at some point in our history, but hopefully it's one who would vote for things in our interest? What else? Executive experience? Er.... Nothing else comes to mind. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.I can see a liberal voting for Obama. He's espousing liberal views. I still cannot get why anyone who is not a liberal would vote for someone SO counter to their own interests.